David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Science. Minister, I refer to the assistant minister's speech on AI today at the Crawford School about how we ensure that Australia captures the economic benefits of AI. There was no mention in this speech of ensuring large multinational tech companies pay their fair share of tax in this country. We know that these big tech companies are experts at offshoring profits and minimising their taxable income in Australia. I note the assistant minister's point that local Australian companies built world-leading mining services businesses and governments collected taxes and royalties. My question is: are we doomed to repeat the same mistakes of the mining boom and of gas exports by failing to capture a benefit for Australians if you're not actually talking about the long-term benefits when it comes to tax return?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the question. Assistant Minister Charlton's speech would have, I expect, gone to the government's priorities in this area. I take the point about the questions around taxation arrangements for large tech companies, and I suppose they are ultimately a question that should be directed towards the Minister representing the Treasurer here, but I can say for the government's part that every firm that invests in Australia is required to pay its fair share of tax. Australia has led the world, including in the OECD processes, as we try to develop an approach that is fair and consistent around multinational tax arrangements.

You will be aware—the Assistant Minister's speech went to these issues—what the focus of the government's approach is in relation to legislating artificial intelligence standards in particular for data centres and what it is that motivates and mobilises the national interest around those questions. It goes to making sure that we capture the benefits of this technology for Australia and for Australians, and capture the economic resilience benefits of that for our future security, making sure that data centre investments occur in the right places and are a net positive for the rollout of our new modern electricity grid.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

The assistant minister made some strong points about the AI value chain and how Australians spend a lot on AI subscriptions, but we're not necessarily competing when it comes to the AI stack; 80 per cent of the benefit of that goes offshore. The thing I hear from Australian companies is that it's very hard to sell to the government. Will the government mandate sovereign Australian capability and companies in procurement so that this doesn't continue to be the case?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) | Link to this | Hansard source

That question that you go to goes to the heart of the government's agenda here—to make sure that, while it is important for Australia's economic resilience, our security and the capability of our economy, we capture as much artificial intelligence training investment here in Australia as possible. It is also equally important that those other elements of what the people in the sector call 'the technology stack', all the way from the critical minerals to metals processing—things like advanced chip manufacturing, the tech start-ups and the benefits for our research and development system—are captured here in Australia to deliver maximum benefit for Australians.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'm interested, if you think it's a problem that—it doesn't sound like you've read the assistant minister's speech, but he says:

… the most urgent economic question before us is how Australia remains a first-rank nation in a world shaped by AI.

I think many people would agree with that. Why is Mr Charlton not a full cabinet minister? Why do we have an assistant minister in charge of AI, given the importance of it?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) | Link to this | Hansard source

This question gives me an opportunity, Senator Pocock—I am touched, as I'm sure Assistant Minister Charlton will be, by your positive reflections upon his speech. He is a very capable assistant minister and cabinet secretary, as it happens. I can tell you it is one of the real joys of my job, which has many, many benefits, to be working with someone as capable and as ambitious for Australia on this question—our critical technology capabilities, whether it's artificial intelligence or quantum wrestling with the challenges that that represents for Australia and Australians, but also the opportunities—

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order on relevance. My question was: should the minister responsible for AI be in cabinet?

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a preamble. The minister's being relevant to your question.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) | Link to this | Hansard source

He is a very capable assistant minister. He is a cabinet secretary. He is very influential in my office, I can tell you, when he works with me on these issues, and very influential within government. (Time expired)